See for Example:
Eighth Circuit: Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic (5/24/24)
Overview: Plaintiffs refused the vaccine based on religious beliefs about bodily sanctity. Protection of religious beliefs is not contingent on uniformity within a religious sect or group. Overlap between religious and secular views does not negate legal protections for religious beliefs.
Overveiw: Employee denied vaccine accommodation based on prayer and belief that vaccination would cause spiritual harm. Courts cannot evaluate the validity or centrality of a person’s interpretation of religious beliefs. The individual’s belief in suffering spiritual harm was protected as a sincerely held religious belief.
Benton v. Bluecross Blueshield Of Tennessee (6/27/2024)
Overview: Jury unanimously found that Benton had proven her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccination was based on a sincerely held religious belief.
Overview: Nurse objected to vaccine mandates, citing concerns about her body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. Employers must accommodate the religious aspects of an employee’s objections, even if there are overlapping secular concerns.
Overview: Amanda Bazinet was terminated after her religious accommodation request was denied. Court ruled that religious beliefs are personal and do not require unanimity among members of a religion to be protected. Also, the sincerity of a religious belief is not negated by the fact that it was informed by external sources like the internet.
For additional court rulings: Lewis-Williams et al v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District; Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Los Angeles Unified School District (Ninth Circuit); EEOC v. Hank’s Furniture; Ascension Health Settlement; Nicholas Bassen, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The United States
See also presentation by Jonathan Cherne, Esq.: Legal Challenges to COVID Vaccine Mandates